Ebie Hussey's first reaction when her son announced that he is gay was to offer unconditional love. Finding a new church was a close second. "His first question was, 'Am I going to hell?' " Hussey said of that conversation with her son, Jaxn. "Mainstream Christianity and fundamental Christianity really pushes that homosexuality is a sin, and he had caught on to that." Jaxn, now 15, knew his parents didn't think that. "But I had always heard people saying that kind of thing," he said. In an effort to counter the message, almost two dozen Houston-area churches have designated Sunday as Bring Your Gay Teen to Church Day.

Anywho, there are a good many proud unrepentant fornicators and adulterers out there, heterosexual variety. Admittedly they dont usually march in the streets, but thats because their sins have become so completely accepted by society.

That's a deflection. The topic is homosexuality. Are you implying that one sin makes another acceptable?

51
posted on 02/19/2011 10:14:47 AM PST
by DJ MacWoW
(America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)

The Bible is clear that homosexual acts are condemned, but I can’t find where being homosexual is condemned. I know it seems like a fine line, but consider the other fine lines that are drawn.

The whole point of church is that you, I or anyone else is IMPERFECT in some way, including in what we feel the urge to do, if everyone acted without second thought on who knows what urges they had in their mind, the world would be way worse than it is now. Homosexual inclinations are far from being the only “bad” urge one can feel heck, even though I’m not I am far from clean and have needed to confess what I thought wrong or did wrong sometimes.

The act is condemned, but the urge, everyone gets some urge to do something that is wrong, it’s up to each of us to either act or be acted upon by it. The urge to get even, the urge to get something without earning it, the urge to have sex with someone premaritally or extra-maritally is wrong either way. Or let’s say you had issues with just simply thinking too much about sex. Probably see where I am going with this. Point is, there are just simply many urges which we should simply not be acted upon by, homosexual inclinations are far from being the only one. I guarantee you pretty much all of us have issues with one “wrong” urge or the other, I sure did and do from time to time. It’s all about what actions those urges turn into, and what we do about it in the end.

But show me their "agenda" and where they've invaded valuable American institutions such as marriage, the traditional family (through adoption), the military, education, religion, and youth mentor groups, trying to get their sin to become "mainstream", and I'll move the threat level that those particular sins pose to our society up a notch.

Well, just off the top of my head.

Widespread acceptance of adultery and the resultant divorce has done a great deal more damage to the institution of the family than any that could possibly result from acceptance of "gay marriage."

Fornication is so accepted as a way of life entire long-running successful TV programs are built around it and the resultant comic possibilities. I'm sure I don't have to name names. The massive increase in illegitimacy and family breakdown is not unconnected.

Few religious groups even make a serious attempt anymore to denounce divorce and fornication as serious sins.

Drunkenness has become a "disease," not a sin.

Reviling has become a sport, not a sin. Particularly popular on the interwebs, where one can revile others anonymously.

My point is not the homosexuality is not a serious sin. It is that the Bible essentially says: Adultery, fornication and homosexuality are serious sexual sins.

Yet you come all unglued about one of the sins listed while thinking it right and proper to ignore the others. There is nothing in the Bible that assigns greater sinfulness to one than the others.

When the reasoning gets subtle, and the post count increases, far too many people jump on the last post out rather than taking the time to follow the thread.

It's so easy to proclaim that homosexuality is condemned. I've never said otherwise, in regard to homosexual acts or lusts -- but I know that there are many people who, through upbringing, circumstances beyond their control, or the confusion of youth, don't follow a clear path.

Rather than abandon them with a simple, "You're going to hell," I believe that God has clearly addressed that sin as he has others -- humans err, human emotions are tangled, and anyone who has recognized the conflict between what they believe about themselves and what God says, and out of that conflict has chosen God's path, have avoided the condemnation of God.

The condemnation of people seems to be a different issue.

59
posted on 02/19/2011 2:15:27 PM PST
by Quiller
(When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)

In my post 46, I responded to Sherman Logan but I was originally going to respond to your post 10 The Bible is clear that homosexual acts are condemned, but I can't find where being homosexual is condemned.

Regarding your comment in your last post ....I believe that God has clearly addressed that sin as he has others -- humans err, human emotions are tangled,...., remember that Jesus himself was the greatest preacher on the topic of Hell that ever lived. Never did he shirk from telling other about the consequences of their actions. Luke 3 verses 3 and 5 are identical verses and get right to the point.... I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.These are just an example of numerous passages that could have been used.

In my post 46, I responded to Sherman Logan but I was originally going to respond to your post 10 as the issue is the same...The Bible is clear that homosexual acts are condemned, but I can't find where being homosexual is condemned.

Regarding your comment in your last post ....I believe that God has clearly addressed that sin as he has others -- humans err, human emotions are tangled,...., remember that Jesus himself was the greatest preacher on the topic of Hell that ever lived. Never did he shirk from telling other or beat around the bush concerning the consequences of their actions...or where they ultimately might be going. Luke 3 verses 3 and 5 are identical verses and get right to the point.... I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Bottom line: Any person consistently practicing sexual immorality without guilt, remorse and ultimately repentance is displaying evidence they are not a Christian. “Sexual Immorality” is anything God has declared to be a wrongful sexual practice or behavior. Adultery, premarital sex, cross dressing, and homosexuality are all (with others) identified in scripture as being “sexual immorality.” Practices that GOD declares to be against His will.

Sexual immorality is inconsistent with true Christianity....to include homosexuality.

63
posted on 02/19/2011 4:37:59 PM PST
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

Bingo... and anything that is against the will of God is an act of rebellion. This really is all one needs to know as it applies to all sin... and the only mechanism that turns rebellion around for the individual is a)identification of the sin, b) acknowledgment that one has sinned, c) repentance....the act of turning 180 degrees and d) seeking forgiveness.

“Bingo... and anything that is against the will of God is an act of rebellion. This really is all one needs to know as it applies to all sin... and the only mechanism that turns rebellion around for the individual is a)identification of the sin, b) acknowledgment that one has sinned, c) repentance....the act of turning 180 degrees and d) seeking forgiveness.”

AND putting one’s total faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to provide the means of forgiveness of sins. It is belief and faith in Jesus whereby imparts grace and forgiveness.

I do want to make one point that is important for all to not miss though. Although ALL sin has the same “eternal” consequence when coupled with unbelief....that is Hell. However, in this life ALL sins do not have the same “temporal” (here and now) consequences. Under the Law of Moses, God made it clear that some sins were worthy of death. Most cases of sexual immorality (act of adultery, homosexual acts, i.e.) were to result in a death penalty. Now we are not strictly under the Law of Moses, but it provides us a guide as to how God views certain practices. So, contrary to what is often said, except in the “eternal” sense, not all sins are equal in the eyes of God.

65
posted on 02/19/2011 5:00:57 PM PST
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

Well, just off the top of my head. Widespread acceptance of adultery and the resultant divorce has done a great deal more damage to the institution of the family than any that could possibly result from acceptance of "gay marriage." Fornication is so accepted as a way of life entire long-running successful TV programs are built around it and the resultant comic possibilities. I'm sure I don't have to name names. The massive increase in illegitimacy and family breakdown is not unconnected. Few religious groups even make a serious attempt anymore to denounce divorce and fornication as serious sins. Drunkenness has become a "disease," not a sin. Reviling has become a sport, not a sin. Particularly popular on the interwebs, where one can revile others anonymously. My point is not the homosexuality is not a serious sin. It is that the Bible essentially says: Adultery, fornication and homosexuality are serious sexual sins. Yet you come all unglued about one of the sins listed while thinking it right and proper to ignore the others. There is nothing in the Bible that assigns greater sinfulness to one than the others.

You make excellent points, something social conservatives are more than aware of. But as my FRiend DJ puts it, "Why add more fuel to the fire of a house that is already burning down?"

The family is society's fundamental, irreplaceable unit. It's the incubator of character -- where children are taught manners, economy, loyalty, faith and love. Anyone with half a brain (which automatically excludes most of the judiciary) wouldn't mess with an institution on whose future the survival of humanity depends.

But the 4-to-3 majority proclaimed that whether or not the family is radically remade so homosexuals will feel better about themselves, and the elite can congratulate itself on its tolerance, matters little to the state of California.

For the life of them, the justices can't imagine why homosexual liaisons should not be placed on an equal footing with families who are doing society's indispensable work of procreation and child-rearing.After the courts delivered a series of body-blows to marriage over the past four decades -- with no-fault divorce, abortion, the de facto legalization of pornography, and legitimizing cohabitation -- the justices thought: Oh, what the h_ll, what harm can there possibly be in opening the honorable estate to members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and Dykes on Bikes?Link to Feder article

While I usually don't speak for my fellow FReepers, I'm certain that they would be very appreciative of you if you fought the other battles in this ongoing culture war (cohabitation, adultery, pornography, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. etc.), while we concentrate on a movement whose "culture" involves peeping through public restroom "glory holes".Link to the homo culture

Working together, we can all win the culture war.

66
posted on 02/19/2011 5:29:53 PM PST
by aSeattleConservative
("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)

Does God consider the sin of homosexuality to be worse than the sin of fornication among heterosexuals?

Answer

Categorically, no, and I will tell you why. Because when you have any listing of sins in the Scripture, for example, in 1 Corinthians, chapter 6, he says, in verse 9, “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]. Categorically, you have got everything in the same list. Probably when you compare sodomites to homosexuals, some would say that homosexuals could refer to what were called Catomites, those who submitted to homosexuals, maybe the younger boy who submits to the pedophile—that kind of thing, so you have two different terms used for homosexual activity. Some would even use those words to refer to people like transvestites or what they are called today “transgender” people. But when you look at a list like that you see that they are all outside the kingdom. So categorically they are all in the same situation—they are defined by their sin. Verse 11, then says, “and such were some of you,” so, the point being, that those are all sins that are characteristic of people outside the kingdom, but they are all forgivable—right?—because, “such were some of you.” He’s saying to the Corinthian church, “you know, that list is a list of what you used to be and some of you were here, and some of you were here, and some of you were here, and so forth.” So, if it is true that that sin along with many others defines life outside the kingdom, but that that sin is forgivable, then in that sense it is no worse a sin than any other.

Having said that, I would say, however, that when you look at Romans, chapter one, and you have to look at Romans, chapter one to understand this: When “the wrath of God (in verse 18) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness...” The “wrath of God” follows a sequence. In Romans, chapter one, you look first of all at verse 24, and here is the defining of God’s wrath—let me kind of sum this up for you. You read Romans 1:18 about “the wrath of God” and we say, “Ok, ‘the wrath of God,’ what are you talking about? Well, there are five kinds of wrath:

1. There is Eternal Wrath - That’s Hell.

2. There is, I guess what we could call, Eschatological Wrath, or the wrath of the last days. The wrath described in Revelation 6-19, all the Seal Judgments, Trumpet Judgments, Bowl Judgments—the final wrath. So there is Eternal Wrath, there is Eschatological Wrath.

3. There is also, what I could call, Cataclysmic Wrath: the flood; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; the destruction of the cities of the plain; the destruction of Capernaum; the judgment of God on Korazin, Bethsaida—and in history God has judged whole civilizations through cataclysms that took unbelieving people and catapulted them into eternity, such as Pompeii, which was a city literally notorious for its vice. So you have Eternal Wrath, you have Eschatological Wrath, you have Cataclysmic Wrath.

4. Then you have, what I would call, Natural Wrath. That is the wrath of God that comes in a sowing and reaping fashion. If you are a drunkard all your life, you may die of cirrhosis of the liver; if you live in sexual sin all your life you may shorten your life and die of some venereal disease including AIDS. So there are certain things built-in, “Whatever a man sows he reaps,” that’s another kind of wrath. But the wrath being spoken of here is the fifth kind.

5. It is the Wrath of Abandonment. It is that judicial act of God whereby He lets the sinner go. In other words, He stops convicting, He stops calling, it’s Genesis six, where God says, “My Spirit will not always strive with man.” There comes a point when God says, “That’s it—I’m letting you go.” And when God lets a society go, verse 24 says, “He gives them over to uncleanness”—that’s sexual sin. Then verse 26, “He gives them up to vile passions, and women exchange the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.” So you have lesbianism and homosexuality. When God gives a society up they plunge into sexual sin and then they sink deeper into homosexual sin.

So while homosexuality is a forgivable sin, and categorically no worse than others, when it happens on a societal level, it is evidence that when a society affirms it, when it becomes normal in a society, that is evidence that God has turned that society over. If you look at America you can look back to the sexual revolution of the 60’s, which has now become a homosexual revolution of the 90’s in which the homosexuals have redefined themselves as a minority, like a racial group of people demanding rights. So I think as far as individual sin goes no more damning than the other sin and as forgivable as any other sin. When it becomes the pattern of a society it is evidence that God has turned that society over to that sin, it may be at that point an evidence that many in that society are not redeemable because they have gone past the “age of grace.”http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-18-2.htm

67
posted on 02/19/2011 6:00:52 PM PST
by aSeattleConservative
("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)

It is fairly obvious the battle you assign me has already been lost. That ship has sailed.

Thanks a lot!

Believe it or not, I’m on your side against the homosexual agenda. I just get tired of people using totally one-sided biblical citations to justify their opposition.

Most of them apparently are unable to comprehend that such justifications are the worst possible ammunition to use. It plays right into the hands of those who claim all opposed to the homosexual radical agenda are “the American Taliban.”

So while homosexuality is a forgivable sin, and categorically no worse than others, when it happens on a societal level, it is evidence that when a society affirms it, when it becomes normal in a society, that is evidence that God has turned that society over.

There are many who believe that when God destroyed life in what is referred to as Noahs flood, a primary reason was because of homosexuality. If one was just to read the account in Genesis, it would seem that it was all about general wickedness... but a wickedness that transcended just actions and permeated peoples minds such that it essentially took them over i.e. Genesis 6;5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Hmmmm... sounds like a sexual sin, no?

Matthew 24 is referred to as the Olivet discourse as it is the time when Jesus sat down with his disciples on the Mount of Olives to answer their question (and I summarize) of when would He return. In verses 37 to 39, Christ lays it out for them... 37) But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In Luke 17, there is a very similar sounding passage to the Matthew one.... 26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

In both the Matthew and the Luke passages, the return of Christ is compared to what it was like at the time of Noah....there were lots of warning signs of the impending event but everyone just blissfully carried on with their lives until it was upon them in an instant. The Luke passage however, adds one very interesting detail. It first compares the time of Noah to the time of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah...what was that time like? Well as we know, this is where the word sodomy comes from. Is it a stretch to suggest that it is no accident that the example of the destruction of Sodom was what was used for comparison to the time of Noah? There are other examples of sudden destruction that could have been chosen. If it was meant to convey the thought of rampant homosexuality existing in both case, then it would seem that the societal acceptance of homosexuality is the hallmark of two earth shattering events - the flood which has already happened and the return of Christ to gather his own which hasn't....yet.

The Bible tells us to love, but it is not loving to be hypocritical and tell a person that sin is not sin.

Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good"

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20

Do you not see that lost people respect truth more than lips that move and just lie just to try and befriend/con them.

Your mother whooped your butt not because she enjoyed seeing you squirm, she did it because she loved you. She cared for you, she wanted to see you become a better person than going the world's ways.

The Bible ministers in many ways, loving is certainly on way, but other ways often overlooked are ridicule, humor, sarcasm and even mocking. When God mocked the Midianites when He defeated them by sending a loaf of bread to attack them. Elijah, just prior to executing 450 prophets of Baal, "mocked them" as the Bible says, telling them to yell louder to their god so that Baal could hear their prayers since he was either on a trip, sleeping or in the restroom.

Why is it the drug council can run ads on tv that mock drug users as dopes and pot heads, but Christians can't even call evil evil? Ridicule can and does save lives.

When informed that Herod wanted to kill Jesus, Jesus commented "Go tell that Fox I cast out demons".. Was that nice? Was it nice when Jesus went through the temple and cast out the bad lot? When Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, was he being nice? Yes, because Jesus loved them.

When Jesus instructed us not to cast our pearls before the swine, was that being mean and uncaring? You tell me. IMHO... A love that is not hypocritical sometimes rebukes and condemns, and then points the way to God.

Jesus has been emasculated by some Christians IMHO.. Thankfully there is plenty of scripture to direct us down the right path. Sometimes a loving way may be the path to take, sometimes other paths are to be taken. Like Jesus said, Judge Rightly and hopefully one will be able to witness. But sometimes one has to "Shake off the dust from your feet" (Mat. 10:14) and move on.

It is fairly obvious the battle you assign me has already been lost. That ship has sailed.

Yet you talk about those sins in a thread (and section of FR) that is dedicated to homosexuality. Why is that? Do you love to argue for the sake of argument, or is there more to your madness?

Believe it or not, Im on your side against the homosexual agenda. I just get tired of people using totally one-sided biblical citations to justify their opposition.

For some strange reason, I've never felt that you or trumanmutt were allies of those that stand for decency. And yes, that whole Leviticus 18:22 where it says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" is pretty one sided isn't it?

But back to other sins for a moment. I was reading this CDC study showing that "HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men". Just another sin? I wonder why liars, adulterers, you know, those other sins that are just as bad as homosexuality, aren't condemned by God with a deadly disease? Thoughts?Link to CDC study on HIV

Most of them apparently are unable to comprehend that such justifications are the worst possible ammunition to use. It plays right into the hands of those who claim all opposed to the homosexual radical agenda are the American Taliban.

Who cares what atheists and moral relativist Libertarians call those that defend God's Word? I've been called an Islamofascist and "the American Taliban" many times, and it's never been by anyone other than an atheist or their limp wristed allies on the Christian Left. I see it as a badge of honor, especially after I expose how Islam is more like YOUR religion (you are an atheist or a member of the limp wristed Christian Left aren't you Sherman?) than mine.

74
posted on 02/20/2011 12:11:49 AM PST
by aSeattleConservative
("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)

. . . Jesus himself was the greatest preacher on the topic of Hell that ever lived. Never did he shirk from telling other or beat around the bush concerning the consequences of their actions...or where they ultimately might be going.

I'm with you 100 -- make that 200 -- percent.

76
posted on 02/20/2011 3:27:28 AM PST
by Quiller
(When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)

In other words, it is NOT simply the action that is sin.....unless one wants to say that lusting in ones heart is an action.

I believe that what you meant to say here was unless one wants to say that 'lusting in one's heart is not an action., since you cite just before the comment that Christ did condemn the thought, as well as the action.

But it gets confusing again later, where you say,

Similarly, it is not simply the thought of thinking about ones predispositions or even contemplating a sexual act with one who is the same sex that is the problem... it is the act of doing it.

Back to the earlier quote from Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Yes, contemplating a sexual act with one who is the same sex is a problem, and you recognize that when you start the post, but blur it later.

I tend to agree with you on the idea that homosexuality is a construct unique to humans, and is not generally found in nature. But then, the soul, sin, salvation, and Heaven are unique to humans also.

That the situation (condition? flaw? -- whatever descriptor one chooses is open to challenge, so pick or substitute whatever best suits you) is not directly named in the Bible earned it the earlier sobriquet of, "The love that dare not speak its name."

But take youthful confusion, add a dash of rebellion, stir in an ample measure of mixed messages, and season with hormonal surges, and the condition for which you make the case that it actually doesn't exist grabs some people's minds, and hearts.

A thief who doesn't steal is not a thief, and kleptomania is not mentioned in the Bible. But a person who recognizes that the almost irresistable urge to take something that belongs to someone else is wrong, and restrains themselves, avoids sin.

If one wants to say that homosexuality is a construct which does not exist, and that a person who feels improper attraction toward a member of his or her own sex, for whatever reason, is actually suffering from improper expression of sexuality, then it changes only the nomenclature, not the issue.

If another wants to hold to the idea that having an attraction to one's own sex is not homosexuality until a lustful thought or act has occurred, then it changes little except the point of awareness.

Yes, human emotions get tangled, and humans err. A person who is struggling with the conflict doesn't care if the demon they are fighting has a name or not -- but to tell them that the demon doesn't exist leaves them even further from the solid ground they need, and dims the signal from the light that will guide them out of the dark.

It is an interesting idea that you pose, and one that I will be considering for some time to come. I am in total agreement with your idea that we should never cede the battleground, but am not certain whether bringing the issue into the open for discussion is a gain or a loss.

77
posted on 02/20/2011 4:19:41 AM PST
by Quiller
(When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)

One further note about the comparison in my Post 69 of the days of Noah to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah....The passage in Genesis 6:5 makes it clear that the people on Earth were so seriously depraved that they had to be destroyed. Regarding the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, there really isnt that much said about them..., the story about what happened to the two angels (in human form) when they visited Lot probably says all that one needs to know to piece the picture together of how depraved the people of these two cities really were such they too had to be destroyed. When looked at from this context, I think that those who believe that God sent the flood because the world was consumed with homosexuality, actually have a strong basis for believing that.. Genesis 19: '4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

It would appear that the common denominator to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah to today is that it simply isn't the case of people sinning on occasion (and being condemed for it), it's a case of that sin being reclassified at the highest societal levels as being something that is decent and acceptable. It is not in God's character to put up with that for long before destruction is meted out.

I believe that what you meant to say here was unless one wants to say that 'lusting in one's heart is not an action., since you cite just before the comment that Christ did condemn the thought, as well as the action.

No, the way I wrote it was the way I meant it. I was just pointing out that if we are only considering actions that are against the will and commandments of God to be sin, this isnt in step with the words of Jesus who extended the definition of sin as well to what goes on in our very thought life. Here....., I realize that Ive worded it in a confusing way so let me reword. Sin can be defined as any action that go against the express will, purpose and commandments of God including the action of even thinking about that sinful activity in a lustful way. The problem with my new wording is that for some people, they will have difficulty with the concept of equating thinking in a lustful way with being an action since there are potentially no outward signs of action per se. The point to all this is that God cares very deeply what we think about, not just what we do. I do believe that there is a difference between sin (as an action) and sin (as something that exists only in ones mind). For the first case, the sin also has profound and immediate impact on all those who are around the individual as well as the individual himself/herself. For the second case, it is a primarily a case of it being sin that stands strictly between the individual and God....and since there are no outwardly appearances to that sin, at first glance it may not look like it has any impact on any other individuals. If the individual is one who is not a Christian, there may in fact be no (or very little) immediate impact at all.... thinking about something continually will eventually lead to taking action in a particular direction. However, we know that it is possible for Christians to sin as well non-Christians and this I think is the exception. As a result of the individual (Christian) not thinking Godly thoughts, a different form of sin will be committed that has impact on all those around...... and that is typically called the sin of omission (a sin characterized not by what someone does but what they dont do.) A basic example....a Christian who allows his/her mind to be consumed with lustful thoughts will not be as inclined to live in a Godly way, be focused on God, carrying out what God wants her/him to do, praising God and so forth. Plus very simply, a Christian is exposing himself to the creeping influence of evil when he/she is not taking every thought captive as stated in 2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

With respect to some of your other thoughts, these start to hint at the issue of what the roots are for sexual attraction of ones own sex....a big topic and one for another day.

I saw your post earlier and wondered about the various means that wrath were classified there but never got back to it. Whenever a particular word is considered for how it is used, it seems reasonable to do a word search so that they can all be grouped together. Hence I did a search for the word wrath in the KJV version, and took a brief look through the references that came up. I didnt study these in detail but some interesting things became apparent.... - Unless I have misinterpreted the meaning, it seems that virtually all the early references in scripture have to do with the wrath of God as it pertains to nations (usually Israel) forsaking God and worshipping idols . - Then there would appear to be a number of references to the wrath of God against those who are enemies of Gods people. - There are a number of references to eternal wrath which is otherwise known as Hell. - There is one reference (Job 20:23) which perhaps could be characterized as the wrath upon the representative wicked man....and it appears to be a wrath visited upon the unrepentant and depraved individual while alive on earth as opposed to after death. - The word wrath of course comes up in the Book of Revelations which has to do with Gods wrath as it pertains to the big picture rebellious nature of his creation... surprisingly, the word wrath does not show up with reference to the Flood of Noah or with any of the more localized destructions such as Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

Ive take the word wrath to mean something quite different than say the word anger. Wrath has a judicial quality about it.... Gods wrath is calm and consequential and with outcomes that strictly have to do with separating right and wrong. The wrath classifications you outline seem to fit in with what Ive outlined above fairly well. With regards to the 5th one, I dont disagree with the concept of wrath of abandonment as it to falls under this concept of judicial outcomes....I just didnt see a Bible verse that associates the word wrath with it.

Few religious groups even make a serious attempt anymore to denounce divorce and fornication as serious sins.

In fact, virtually any pastor will marry a couple when one or both of them is divorced, and not divorced for any exigent, biblical reason. Even in denominations which say they won't do this, the RC Church finds a way through "annulment," merely divorce by another name.

You are correct, Sherman. We, as Christians corporately, have neglected biblical teaching as supreme for so long, that we are culpable for much of what we are seeing now. If the divorce rate in this country was virtually nil, as it was several generations ago, the sodomites would not have at least this foothold to advance their agenda.

It’s ever so much more fun to denounce those who participate in activities you find disgusting than to denounce those activities you find attractive, or quite often participate in personally.

A classic example is the change in the definition of the word “dating.” Decades ago it referred to a courtship process, with sexual activity, at least in the early stages, assumed to be minimal. Today it means sleeping around, as in the common question to a divorced person, “Have you started dating yet?”

In fact, virtually any pastor will marry a couple when one or both of them is divorced, and not divorced for any exigent, biblical reason. Even in denominations which say they won't do this, the RC Church finds a way through "annulment," merely divorce by another name.

You are correct, Sherman. We, as Christians corporately, have neglected biblical teaching as supreme for so long, that we are culpable for much of what we are seeing now. If the divorce rate in this country was virtually nil, as it was several generations ago, the sodomites would not have at least this foothold to advance their agenda.

Sherman isn't correct about anything. He's attempts to deflect the war against the homosexual agenda by pointing out other "flaws" in our culture, instead of putting forth every effort to defeat the homosexual agenda, and THEN concentrate on returning to the things that made our country great. When told to fight those battles (being that he's not the least bit interested in fighting the battle against sodomite deviancy), he says that those battles are lost.

Sherman, you're a disgrace to our country and those of us that follow God's Word.

87
posted on 02/21/2011 7:44:28 AM PST
by aSeattleConservative
("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)

Yes, our modern language has accommodated every perverse practice under the guise of a euphemism.

I remember hearing Elizabeth Elliot, wife of the late missionary Jim Elliot, make the startling - to us anyway - statement that a civil, Christian society used to marry without what we would consider "dating" at all. The families would become involved, and in the process, the couple would become acquainted in the family/group setting. The almost-defunct custom of the bride and the groom not seeing each other before the wedding is a vestige of this once universally accepted norm. "Dating," as we've known it for a couple of generations, was virtually unknown.

Our maladies, or our continuance in them, mostly stem from our continued, eager consumption of popular culture, regardless of our words denouncing the values that permeate it. We voraciously consume television, virtually all of which is corrupt to the core - if not the programming, the lascivious commercials. And we are too blind, and much too proud, to admit that we are not immune to these influences.-

You won't find a fiercer denouncer of homosexuality and its detrimental influence on society than this poster. But whatever else Sherman stands for, he's right that we are weak, pathetic hypocrites if we wallow in our "right" to divorce willy-nilly, for any reason, and espouse premarital sex and cohabitation, and not expect this to strengthen the sodomites' argument, although fatally flawed, for redefining marriage as deviancy. Weakening our own foundation strengthens theirs in effect.

Homosexual activism should be opposed forcefully at every turn, and I do so every chance I get. But a multi-pronged approach would be so much more effective. Strengthen our own marriages and holding our own Christian congregations to a much higher standard, that set by none other than God, would take this accusation out of the perverts' hands and go a long way toward rendering their argument more impotent.

You won't find a fiercer denouncer of homosexuality and its detrimental influence on society than this poster.

I've always admired your posts and never questioned your commitment to God and our Christian based republic. However, as Sherman wisely noted, those other battles are lost (I'll add: "for now"). Before we can return to those battles we have to defeat the current one: the homosexual agenda, as if we don't, ALL will be lost.

By all means start holding up fellow Christians and our churches to higher standards, but don't get involved in too many battles, as the entire war will then be lost.

94
posted on 02/21/2011 9:28:41 AM PST
by aSeattleConservative
("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)

Most dads would rather be told they have terminal cancer than have their son tell them he is gay, particularly if it is your only son. Coming out of the closet is a selfish act. It turns your problem into your familys problem and forces everyone around you to live a lie. I have seen this destroy families. If you are gay, stay in the closet.

If the above is true, the father does not love his son unconditionally, or possibly even love his son at all. He only would love his son if he were straight. So he will lose his only son, with no real compassion for the son's life or troubles. He wants the son to lie to him, so the son will not seek connection with him at all.

A person who is struggling with the conflict doesn't care if the demon they are fighting has a name or not -- but to tell them that the demon doesn't exist leaves them even further from the solid ground they need, and dims the signal from the light that will guide them out of the dark.

Before we can return to those battles we have to defeat the current one: the homosexual agenda, as if we don't, ALL will be lost.

I'm in agreement with you. The homosexual deluge on society is the most insidious, destructive spirit attacking humanity today, although most FReepers here would deny it.

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. To strengthen those other supports for what is good, our own marriages and our own sexual purity, we have to look, ironically, elsewhere - other than to our own marriages and sexual purity. We MUST stop consuming popular culture like water; it is deadly poison and we deceive ourselves if we think we can continue wallowing in it and emerge unscathed. My television has been "unplugged" for over a year, since the digital conversion, and I don't miss it one bit. In the off chance that I do see a t.v. broadcast somewhere, I am horrified by the content and presentation. And to think that most people spend hours of every day in front of this manure pile.

I haven't been to a movie in over a year and know I'm not missing anything. In that time, I've read several very good books that provoke some much-needed thinking - something that t.v. and movies virtually never do.

I would suggest that wolfman means by "coming out of the closet" refers only to those who not only wholely accept, but celebrate the discovery of being homosexual, bringing along with it the evil militancy that that mindset entails. In such an instant, yes, a father feels that part of him is dying, that he has failed in some duty as a father, and that death would be preferable.

The converse is someone who humbly admits to their sexual weakness to those around them, their family members and friends, and relies on these supports to overcome and repudiate the inner weakness.

But how many of us here on this very site are guilty of willfully and joyously violating Commandment ONE?

How open is the First Commandmant to interpretation? How flexible and changeable is the Covenant? What happened at Sinai? How shall we divide the godhead? What does it mean to read that over and over again the Lord defines himself as ONE? With what measure of grace can we bow to the Triune? How many gods shall we worship, we who (of course) alone hold the the keys to the kingdom?

These are questions not worth asking.

The important thing is to let those buggers know they are going to Hell.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.